Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:22:36.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Real-life prescribing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Fiona Hynes ,
Claire Dibben  and
Allen Kharbteng
Fiona Hynes
Affiliation:
The Yews, CPRS, Box 354, Fulbourn Hospital, Fulbourn, Cambridge CB15EF
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Columns
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 27 , Issue 10 , October 2003 , pp. 394
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2003

We agree with the recent audit of Meagher & Moran (Psychiatric Bulletin, July 2003, 27, 266-270), in which they reported that real-life prescribing differs from evidence-based guidelines. Our audit of Cambridge's rehabilitation service (a tertiary referral centre) was carried out over 1 week in June 2003. Two-hundred and seventeen patients were receiving antipsychotic medication through our pharmacy: 171 received oral medication alone, 29 long-acting intramuscular medication and 17 combined oral and intramuscular medication. Similar to Meagher & Moran, we found antipsychotic polypharmacy in 56 patients (26%), but 26 of these were receiving clozapine plus adjunctive, e.g. sulpiride. Polypharmacy was evident in the in-patients, with 52% of our 58 in-patients receiving more than one antipsychotic in comparison to 16% of the 159 out-patients, implying that polypharmacy might be a transient phenomenon. No one was prescribed thioridazine or droperidol.

We found, using a percentage of the British National Formulary (BNF, 2003) maximum recommended limit, a practical method of calculating the total daily dose as two-thirds of our patients were prescribed atypical monotherapy. Sixteen of our patients (7.4%) received antipsychotics above BNF maximum limits, while Meagher & Moran found 4.9% received more than 1000 mg chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZEs). Yorston & Pinney (Reference Yorston and Pinney2002) state that there are a number of problems with the use of CPZEs and also report that there is no simple linear relationship between CPZEs and percentage of BNF maximum limits for high doses. This may account for some of the differences found. Another explanation may be the number of patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

References

British National Formulary (2003) British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.Google Scholar
Yorston, G. & Pinney, A. (2000) Chlorpromazine equivalents and percentage of British National Formulary maximum recommended dose in-patients receiving high-dose antipsychotics. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24, 130–132.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.